1 CORINTHIANS 12:13

AN EXEGESIS OF 1 CORINTHIANS 12:13.

The Greek says, GAR EN ENI PNEUMATI HEMEIS PANTES EIS EN SOMA EBAPTISTHEMEN, “For by one Spirit we all were baptized into one body.”

Daniel B. Wallace says this is an example, or “an illustration,” of preposition EN used for means (Greek Grammar Beyond Basics, 374). By means, it is the instrument used. Thus EN ENI PNEUMATI, “by one Spirit,” is dative instrumental. Thus say Strong and Robertson also.

This means that the Holy Spirit is the instrument Christ uses. The passage is parallel to Mark 1:8. PNEUMATI HAGIO in Mark 1:8 clearly indicates the Spirit as the means; and so 1 Corinthians 12:13 may not differ from it. The use of preposition BY is reasonable. “For BY one Spirit.”

Those who promote present-day Holy Spirit baptism say that EN + Dative’s only use is locative and not instrumental. They are making an exclusive rule where there is none!.

They say that in this way, in the construction EN + PNEUMATI, the Holy Spirit becomes the sphere, or the location. And yet this interpretation is not consistent with their interpretation of Eph. 5:18, where the same construction is found. EN PNEUMATI here speaks of the Spirit as the means. The idea of Paul is that the believers are to be filled by means of the Spirit.

If EN PNEUMATI in Eph. 5:18 is dative of means, and therefore instrumental, why can’t EN PNEUMATI in 1 Corinthians 12:13 be dative instrumental also?

I suspect that their insistence of interpreting 1 Corinthians 12;13 as locative is for reasons dubious and self-serving. I am just consistent. I look at both passages with the same construction as similar in meaning and therefore must be similarly interpreted.

Lastly, the verb employed in 1 Corinthians 12:13 is aorist. Aorist is referring to a past event, unrepeatable. It is not referring to a continuous progressive act..

Here is the death knell of present-day Holy Spirit baptism doctrine. 1 Corinthians 12:13 can never be used by them to prove that they must have Holy Spirit baptism today simply because 1 Corinthians 12:13 does not say so!

They will not need an aorist to prove their doctrine! They will need a present continuous verb to help them promote their doctrine!

Now, you HSB people, find me a verse in the Bible that says, “For in one Spirit we today are being baptized into one body!”

1 Corinthians 12:13 cannot help you. It has already been fulfilled!

Advertisements

An Exposition of John 17:1-3

Verse 1 of this chapter tells us that the Lord prays that the Father may glorify Him, in return for which He may glorify the Father. “May glorify” here is literal translation and you will find it rendered so in ASV, KJV, RSV and Confraternity Version.

The Greek word kathos, translated as “as” (KJV), “even as” (ASV), “since” (RSV), may also be rendered “just as”“inasmuch as” (Strong’s Hebrew & Greek Dictionaries). The RSV sounds much better in English: “Since thou has given Him power over all flesh.” The reference of “thou” is the Father, and “Him” is Jesus. In direct address, Jesus could also have said, “Glorify me, Father, that I may glorify you too, inasmuch as, since, just as (kathos) you have given me power over all flesh.”

Perfect tense is how the translators render the Greek verb edokas, and so RSV has “has given” while both Confraternity and KJV have “hast given” as translations. edokas however sounds like aorist to me, and so it is rendered in the ASV as “thou gavest.” In modern English, “you gave.” But past action is not the only sense of the aorist; it may also refer to an action seen as a whole, albeit finished and done, and so RSV, KJV, and Confraternity all have the perfect tense. The aorist has been around us for thousands of years and Greek grammarians are still trying to make sense of it. It is a tense that is rich with meanings, and personally I am thankful that this is so. Language, to be enjoyable, must be rich with sense!

And so I translate verse 2 literally as, “Inasmuch as thou gavest him authority over all flesh, that [to] all which [or whom] thou has given him he may give to them life eternal.”

 

Verse 3 explains what that eternal life is. It is knowing God the Father as the only true God; it is also knowing Jesus as the One whom the Father sent. Both phrases, “the only true God” and “he whom thou didst send Jesus Christ” are objects of the verb “know.” Both phrases are joined by the Greek conjunction kai,and.”

To argue that, since both direct objects are joined by conjunction “and,” and since “and” does not separate but joins thoughts, objects, or ideas of similar categories, therefore “the true God” is the same as “Jesus Christ whom you have sent,” is really ungrammatical, illogical and far-fetched. These preachers, in their effort to save their theology, threw their net into the Pond of Despondency and this was one of those rules they caught! Where is the logic there? “And” simply joins two objects, ideas, thoughts, and those thoughts, objects and ideas are not necessarily the same. And I say far-fetched because it is unlikely that that is what Jesus has in mind when He said it.

What then? Admire those people for their fervency and zeal—they just want to guard the ramparts of the faith in the hope of securing it for the generations to come. But their method is madness, their grammar is idiocy and their logic is foolishness! Therefore shun them as you do a plague!

(6) The Fullness of the Godhead Dwells in Jesus

“For in Him dwells the fullness of the Godhead bodily,” reads Colossians 2:9 (NKJV). The Greek text says: ‘οτι εν αυτω κατοικει παν το πληρωμα της θεοτητος σωματικως (Wescott-Hort). Giving their equivalents in the Roman texts, the Wescott-Hort Greek texts read: hoti en auto katoikei pan to ple’roma tes theo’tetos somatikos. Alfred Marshall translates: “Because in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily” (Marshall, The Interlinear Greek-English New Testament).

GODHEAD DEFINED. M. R. Vincent (Word Studies in the NT, 906) thinks “the essential and personal deity” that makes God “God” (the θεοτητος, theotetos) belongs to Jesus. This is the necessary conclusion based on the meaning of the phrase “all the fullness of the Godhead.” Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich and Danker define the word θεοτητος as “deity, divinity,” adding that the word is “used as abstract noun” for θεος, theos, “God.” (Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich and Danker,  A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 358). BAGD cites Colossians 2:9 for this usage. θεος is “God,” while θεοτητος and its co-derivative θεοτης, theotes, means “Godhead.”

GODHEAD OR DIVINITY? The word θεοτητος in Colossians 2:9 is translated “Godhead” but a related word in Romans 1:20, θειοτης, theiotes (note the iota letter!), is rendered variously by different translators: as “divinity” (ASV, Centenary Translation, Darby’s), “existence” (BBE), “divine nature” (God’s Word, Weymouth’s), “Godhead” (KJV, Wesley’s, Young’s), and “deity” (RSV).  Do θεοτητος and θειοτητος, or θεοτης and θειοτης, mean the same?

Vine says no. His argument is that θειοτης, “divinity,” is derived from θειος, “divine” (Vine, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words With Their Precise Meanings for English Readers, item: “Divinity,” 328); θεοτητος, “Godhead,” on the other hand, is rooted from θεος, “God.”

Vine says: (1) θειοτης, “divinity” (cf. Romans 1:20), indicates the divine essence of Godhood, the Personality of God; and that (2) θεοτητος, or θεοτης (cf. Colossians 2:9), indicates His divine attributes, nature and properties (Ibid., 328-329). It would be best to do more research on this.

MEANING OF “KATOIKEI,” “DWELLS.” The Greek text reads: ‘οτι εν αυτω κατοικει, hoti en auto katoikei, literally, “For in Him dwells.” κατοικει in its intransitive usage means “live, dwell, reside, settle (down)” (BAGD, 424). When intransitive, the verb stands without a direct object. For example, this sentence: “He dwells.” The subject is “He,” the verb is “dwells,” and while it has no object we know that the sense and meaning of the sentence is complete.

κατοικει in its transitive usage means “to inhabit something.” This means the verb cannot stand without a direct object. Matthew 23:21 illustrates this usage: “And the one swearing by the temple swears by it, and by the one inhabiting (katoikounti) it.” The present active participial verb “inhabiting” has for its object the pronoun “it.”

A derivative of κατοικει is the noun κατοικησις, katoikesis, meaning living, or dwelling quarters (cf. Mark 5:3, “who had his dwelling among the tombs”) (BAGD, 424).  Another derivative, κατοικιa, katoiki’a, is a noun and is translated “dwelling place,”  or “habitation” (cf. Acts 17:26, literally, “the boundaries of their dwelling”) (BAGD, 424).

κατοικει, katoikei, in Colossians 2:9 is present active indicative. Why active? The phrase “the fullness of the Godhead” is the one doing the action!

“For in Him dwells the fullness of the Godhead bodily” can also be arranged like this: “For the fullness of the Godhead dwells in Him bodily.” “The fullness of the Godhead” is the subject, the verb is “dwells,” “bodily” is an adverb that modifies the verb “dwells,” and “in Him” is a prepositional phrase that tells us the where of the indwelling. In more ways than one, prepositional phrases function like adverbs, modifying verbs.

In Colossians 2:9, the action, “dwells,” is not done by Jesus; he is in fact the one being dwelt in.

It can neither be said that Jesus is the direct object of the verb “dwells,” because “in Him” is a prepositional phrase, and “Him” is the object of the preposition “in.” κατοικει is present tense, active voice; furthermore, it is intransitive, since it has no direct object.

Katoikei is a continuous or ongoing action. When we say that κατοικει, “dwells,” is in the present tense, we also mean that the action of  that verb  is continuous. Therefore what Paul says in Colossians 2:9 about Christ is a fact that stands true, that in Him “continually dwells the fullness of the Godhead.” And for that reason the indicative mood of the verb is used, it simply declares something to be a fact; and it is a fact that the Godhead keeps dwelling in Jesus, wherever He may be. “The present tense,” says Rogers and Rogers, “indicates the continual state [of Jesus] and points to the present reality [of him in heaven]” (Rogers & Rogers, 464). I once argued this fact with an INC minister, but he objected to my use of the Greek New Testament. He wanted to remain as an ignoramus, so I let him!

To the question: “Was the divine essence of Christ personally present on earth during Christ’s earthly ministry?” the answer should be “yes.”

IN HIM DWELLS ALL THE PLEROMA. The παν το πληρωμα, pan to ple’roma, “all the fullness,” is what dwells in Jesus. For a related passage see Colossians 1:19“For in him all the fullness [of the Godhead] was pleased to dwell” (Darby’s Translation).

πληρωμα, pleroma, is rooted from πληροω, pleroo, “to make full, to fill” (BAGD, 670). It can be used in the sense in which objects or persons  are filled with intangible things or qualities (as in, “the ship’s sail filled out by the wind”; “a sound filled the house”; “the house was filled with fragrance”; “You have filled Jerusalem with your teaching,” Acts 5:28; “And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full,” Dan 8:23; “fill someone’s heart,” that is, take possession of it, Eccl. 9:3) (Ibid., 670-671).

BAGD defines πληρωμα as (a) “that which fills up”; (b) “that which makes something full or complete, that which supplements or complements”; (c) “that which is full of something”; (d) “that which is brought to fullness or completion”; and (d) “that which is the sum total, the fullness, the superabundance” of something (BAGD, 672). Relative to the definition (d) above, BAGD cites Colossians 2:9, and says the phrase “the fullness of the Godhead” means “the full measure of deity” (Ibid.). What makes God “God” dwells in its fullness in Jesus.

The πληρωμα is something that is intangible and therefore to engage in measurements and physical dimension when talking about the “Godhead” (as the INC-1914 would often do) is to lose sight of the meaning of  it. The “fullness of the Godhead” is not a tangible something. So forget about the metric dimensions, the encasing and the body size. I am sure Jesus’ body size was tangible, but what dwelt in him was not. Let us look at the figure with the eye of faith.

WHAT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT? Wasn’t the Holy Spirit in Christ during his earthly ministry, you would ask. What do you mean by “in Christ”? In two places in the Book of Matthew the Holy Spirit is mentioned in relation to Him and His work: (1) It was prophesied that the Spirit of God would be “upon him” (Matthew 12:17-19), and such was true during His ministry. (2) It is said that the Holy Spirit was “upon Him” during his baptism to identify Him as the chosen one of God (Matthew 3:16). This not only identifies Jesus but also reconfirms the Spirit’s presence and His separate identity from the Son and the Father.

If you insist that the Spirit was “in Christ” during His ministry, be informed that your evidence here is wanting. It would be best to examine the meaning of this Greek prepositional phrase translated as “upon Him” (επ αυτον, ep auton), cf. Matthew 3:16; 12:18. “Upon Him” does not mean “in Him.”

Furthermore, don’t be confused by thinking that if the Holy Spirit resided “in Him” (such a phrase of course I have yet to encounter in the New Testament, but I may be wrong), that is the same thing as saying that “fullness of the Godhead dwells in Him.”  The phrase “fullness of the Godhead” has never been equated with, is not identified with, and does not refer to the Holy Spirit.

The ministry of the Holy Spirit among Christians did not come until the event of Acts 2.

DWELLS BODILY. The πληρωμα of the θεοτητος, “the fullness of the Godhead,” dwells in Jesus “bodily.” The word here is σωματικως, somatikos, rooted from the Greek σωμα, soma, “body.” It is an adverb and means “bodily,’ “corporeally” (Vine’s, “Bodily,” 137; BAGD, 800).

In its adjective form, it means (a) “being or consisting of a body,” cf. Luke 3:22; and (b) “pertaining or referring to the body” (BAGD, 800).

The term “Godhead” is the translation of the word θεοτητος. Rogers and Rogers defines it as “divine nature, deity,” and that it “differs from the expression ‘Godhead’ in Romans 1:20 in that it emphasizes not so much divine attributes but divine nature or essence.” In describing the deity that is in Jesus, Rogers & Rogers says, “Divine glory did not merely gild Him, lighting up His person for a season with a splendor not His own; He was and is absolute and perfect God” (Rogers & Rogers, 464).

BAGD renders the phrase ‘οτι εν αυτω κατοικει παν το πληρωμα της θεοτητος σωματικως, “in Him the whole fullness of Deity dwells bodily” which is to be understood as “in reality, not symbolically” (BAGD, 800). As the body of Jesus is real, the full deity that dwells in Him is also real. It is an actual, personal, and direct indwelling of the deity. I am inclined to believe that it is His own deity that dwells in His own body, and that deity is described by Paul as nothing less than what the Godhead  is and should be. Note for example that passage in Hebrews that says: “Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, But a body didst thou prepare for me; 6 In whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hadst no pleasure” (Hebrews 10:5-6, ASV). The body that came out of Mary’s womb was the body that became the habitation of the deity that came into the world. Jesus is God become man.

Colossians 2:9 thus means that the divine nature including the divine attributes that was Jesus, the Logos, became incarnate and indwelt in the body of the Redeemer of men. God needed to come down to be man’s Saviour (for only a Deity could save man) and become human to complete that salvation by the shedding of His blood (“without the shedding of blood there is no remission,” Hebrews 9:22). If He left His deity in heaven, He could not save, being man alone.

There is no need to speculate that it was the Holy Spirit who dwelt in Him, nor was it the Father. It was He himself as an individual Person in the Godhead! And that “Godhead” that inhabited the body of the man Jesus was nothing less than the full Godhead that was the Father and the Holy Spirit.

But, you may object, there is a passage too that plainly says the Father dwells in Jesus (John 14:10). My question: Do you believe that to be the literal indwelling of the Father in the body in Jesus?  The verb in that passage is menon, which not only means “dwelling” but also means “remaining,” or “abiding.” Even the translators have a problem on how to translate it, whether to render it  “to dwell,” “to abide,” or “to stay.” In one instance in John, the word meneis, a derivative of menon, was translated “dwell(John 1:38, “where dwellest thou?”). In another, it was translated “abide” as in John 1:39, “They abode (emeinan) with Him that day.”

Be informed also that Christ says the Father is “in” Him, and He is “in” the Father, and prays that His disciples may be one “in” them (John 17:21).

John in another epistle writes that anyone who confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, “God dwells in him, and he dwells likewise in God” (1 John 4:15). The verb for “dwells” here is menei. If one insists on God’s literal dwelling in him, why not too insist on his literal dwelling in God?

I believe that the Deity that was the Logos dwells in the man Jesus. That deity was no less in quality and essence than the Father and the Spirit, for which reason Paul calls it the “fullness of the Godhead” and it dwells bodily, in reality, in truth, in the body of the Redeemer of the world. But when it comes to the “indwelling” of the Father in Him, I believe that to be non-literal. By non-literal, I don’t mean it is not true; neither do I mean it is not real. I mean it is spiritual. The Father spiritually dwells in Jesus.

You may have your concept of the personal indwelling of the Godhead, or of the Spirit in you. I believe that to be  spiritual. Note too what John says: “God is love, and he that dwelleth in love, dwelleth in God, and God in him” (1 John 4:16). We cannot literally dwell in God in much the same way as we cannot literally dwell in love.  Dwelling in God and dwelling in love, while they are truthful, real, and factual, they are not literal. They are spiritual.

The inhabiting of the Godhead in Jesus is rather unique and cannot be compared to your concept of the personal individual bodily indwelling of the Spirit.  What dwells in the body of Jesus is the “fullness of the Godhead” (that which makes Him,  the Father and the Spirit truly God, and I mean here the essence, attributes and nature of Godhood); what dwells in you, singularly, personally, individually, bodily,  is your own spirit.

Any reaction to this post will surely be appreciated. I can always rectify my position with the help of elucidation, explanation, or argumentation from you brethren.

CLICK HERE FOR  PREVIOUS POST, 5TH IN THE SERIES…

Having a Closer Walk with the Spirit

When life threatens to overwhelm you, when misfortunes bring you down to the pit, when doubts and life’s baffling questions threaten to snuff out that little fire of faith that remains in the heart, try praying. Try getting the help of the Spirit. You need not despair, because the God you do not see works behind the scenes, and causes all things to fall into place. These work for your good to make you a better child of God and prepare you for the life in heaven. Life may not be easy. But knowing that the Father above brushes away the clouds that He may have a good gaze of you, that the Son who is on his throne keeps on believing in your ability to carry on, and that the Holy Spirit who lives among us is there ready to share our burdens, then life begins to be configured according to the perspective that you could understand. Be still, be calm, be at peace. You have a help that is more than what a million angels can offer. Rejoice, rejoice, rejoice.

Click here to open the page, then download 07 HAVING A CLOSER WALK WITH THE SPIRIT.

The Preacher and His Preaching

IMG_0570Is preaching a tired old business? On the contrary it is a business that concerns itself with the most important thing one could ever think of: That of making ourselves right with the God whom we have displeased.

Displeased, you say? Yes. We displease Him when we  get out of line or misbehave. We displease Him when we’re out of step with His will and purposes for us. We displease Him when we refuse to heed His pleadings. We displease Him when we wallow in the mire of sin. We displease Him in every which way we turn when that turn turns out to be bad. And we can never make ourselves right with Him, not even with ourselves, unless He supplies us with the formula to make us attuned to Him again.

Click here to read more>>>

For our lessons on the preacher and his preaching life, click this link.

For our lessons on God’s great redemptive plan, click this link.

(1) The Fact of the Spirit’s Indwelling

FOR THE NEXT POST, CLICK HERE…

This is admittedly one of the most difficult topics we have tackled thus far. The difficulty, for one, lies in the fact that we in our modern language are attempting to understand one of the most baffling subjects tackled by the ancients, portrayed in their language, with their first century cultural background, idioms, and grammatical construction. There is a great chasm that separates us and the people of the New Testament times. New Testament Greek, being a dead language, is static (and thank God because this limits our search); while modern languages keep changing and dialects keep multiplying as knowledge grows. Every generation of men and women since the time of William Tyndale looks for a Bible translation they can comfortably read and connect with, and translations are every generation of translators’ way of trying to look at the Book and telling us what it means. There is no perfect translation. I am saying this at the outset of this discussion because we sometimes insist on arguments based on the points that we have lifted from the Bible translations. Let’s us take the discussion to the much higher plane. Go to the Greek New Testament. What do the ancients say?

I call this series of studies “The Holy Spirit’s Indwelling: A Second Look at the Doctrine that Baffles Religious People.” A second look is necessary because of the caveat against false teachers (1 John 4:1). In obedience to this injunction, we test the spirits of those who are in our own backyard and in other backyards. In the book of Acts there is also an example of disciples who, listening to an inspired apostle, received the Word with open hearts (meta pases prothumias, “with all eagerness”) but examined the Scriptures daily whether those things were so (cf. Acts 17:11). We are not to take everything everybody is saying as gospel truth.

The “indwelling of the Spirit” is not “incarnation.” We are not talking here of the incarnating Spirit. To be incarnate is to be “in flesh.” Jesus, while in heaven, was God (John 1:1), or was in God’s form (Philippians 2:6), but when He came to earth He became flesh (John 1:14), He became incarnate. Yet is said that He received the Spirit without measure (John 3:34). Without measure means not in a limited degree, but fully, completely. While he was on earth, Jesus spoke and ministered and performed miracles with the Spirit’s assistance (cf. Matthew 12:28).

I have heard this being argued somewhere. The proponent of the theory, insisting that the Holy Spirit dwells in him bodily, also insists that he has given flesh to the Holy Spirit, that his body becomes the home of the Spirit. This is arguing from the point of English grammar, because to “indwell” also means to “dwell in.” The Holy Spirit literally dwelling in the body of a sinful person? Does the Spirit go wherever you go, move wherever you move? If the argument is pushed to its logical conclusions, the proponent, not having logical answers ready, would resort to sophistry. And sophistry is false logic.

The Bible never speaks of the indwelling of the Spirit in Christians as an “incarnation.”

“Literal indwelling of the Spirit”? If the Holy Spirit literally, personally dwells in you, then the third member of the Godhead has become much smaller. He must become small in order to really, literally, personally dwell in you. (If you don’t accept these conclusions, it is probably because you have a pretty limited concept of what the word “literally” means).

But, you insist, the Holy Spirit could fit inside you because He dwells in you spiritually. You however have no Scripture evidence to prove this. You have abandoned “literal indwelling,” and now you have been willing to embrace the “spiritual indwelling” theory. But the idea of a Spirit dwelling in man “spiritually” is actually redundant and does not mean anything. Besides, you have no proof for this. Your notion is no proof.

Also, if the Spirit of God dwells in you spiritually, then you must admit that He also indwells you in some other way than spiritual. He must do this if you think He is omnipotent. If not, why not?

Now, if he dwells in you spiritually, snugly fitted inside you, then you must admit that He does not dwell in you literally. Also, if He fits inside you, then He ceases to be omnipresent. If you want Him to be omnipresent, then you have to distribute Him. The Spirit is in you now, also in him, also in others. You have turned Him into slices of something of which He is not (cf. Isaiah 55:8). You have humanized your God.

Another question: Why does He need to be snugly fitted inside you?

Have you noticed that “literal indwelling” is just a terminology men have invented which finds no precedent in the Scriptures? In my many years of listening to brethren claiming that the Holy Spirit actually, literally and personally dwells in them, I have never heard them say what the Holy Spirit precisely says or does while He is inside them. Does He communicate to you in Hiligaynon? In Ilocano? In Cebuano? In English? In a trance? Through vision? Does He nudge you? Can you feel it when He is inside you? Do you consult Him? Does He consult you?

You claim to have the literal personal indwelling and yet perform no miracles. Others claim the same literal personal indwelling and also claim to perform wonders. You are correct in not claiming you could do miracles; he is wrong in claiming he could. But the burden of proof now lies on both of you. Where does it say that the Spirit literally and personally dwells in both of you? Will the Spirit dwell in the bodies of people who are worlds apart in points of doctrine?

Does the word “filled with the Spirit” mean “literally filled”? Does it also mean “literally indwelt” by the Spirit? Two apostles were said to be sent forth by the Spirit (Acts 13:4); does this mean “indwelt” by the Spirit? One apostle, “filled with the Spirit,” blinded a sorcerer (Acts 13:8-12). If you think this means he was “indwelt by the Spirit,” may I remind you that the ancients never spoke this way, and if you want to know you may go to a Bible lexicon. It is just your notion telling you that “being filled with the Spirit” means being “indwelt by the Spirit.” You see what you are doing? You are trying to clothe an ancient idiom with your 21st century notion. The word “filled,” as in “filled with the Holy Ghost” (Acts 13:9), is the Greek plestheis, aorist passive participle of pimplemi, which means to be “filled with external perceptible things”; it may also be used to describe a man’s inner life, as in “filled with enthusiasm”; it also means to be “satiated” with something. It does not mean “indwelt with.” (See Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, and Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, p. 658).

No mention of indwelling in Acts 13:8-12. So you have a man not Spirit-indwelt who performed a miracle.

Not a long time ago I listened to an actor (his name is in the forefront of protests against the Arroyo administration) telling us on TV about all the good things the Holy Spirit had directly led him to do, all of them worldly and material in nature, including what brand of a car to buy, what business to engage in. Apparently he had been deceived into thinking that with the Spirit living in him literally and personally, everything he does and would do, including instigating protests and supporting acts of rebellion against the constituted authority, was right and lawful. He claimed to be a Spirit-indwelt, miracle-working leader of their group, and said the Holy Spirit did some nudging to him as he went car-shopping.

The Holy Spirit of Promise. We sometimes argue that the Holy Spirit had been promised to the apostles only, using Luke 24:48 and Acts 1:8. Strictly speaking what was promised them was the power from on high. This power came when the Holy Ghost came on Pentecost day, accompanied by the sound of the rushing mighty wind and the appearance of cloven tongues like as of fire which sat on each one of them. Filled with the Holy Ghost they each spoke as the Spirit gave them utterance.

We argue that because it has not been promised us, we are not entitled to the power that came with the baptism of the Holy Ghost. Correct. Not everyone receives the promised bonuses and perks, except only those who have been promised these perks and bonuses.

Holy Spirit baptism a promise, not a command? That’s a cute way of saying it. Very simplistic. The apostles were promised the power (Luke 24:48; Acts 1:8), yes, but they were also commanded to tarry in Jerusalem until they be endued with that power (Acts 1:4). The transaction involved both a promise and a command. Had they not followed the command to wait in the city, they would not have received the power that was promised them.

During the long haul, one’s interpretation sometimes gets an overhaul.

Acts 2:38. This passage talks about the gift of the Holy Spirit and there’s no denying that this is also a promise. “Repent and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of sins and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” By baptism one puts on Christ (Gal. 3:27). By baptism he also becomes a newborn creature (John 3:3-6; Romans 6:3-6). The three thousand were commanded to repent and be baptized; after baptism they received the promised gift of the Holy Spirit. “Repent” (Greek, metanoesate, aorist imperative active) and “be baptized” (Greek, baptistheto, aorist imperative passive) are both commands.

Is dorea the Holy Spirit Himself? Now, what is the “gift of the Holy Spirit” (Greek, dorean tou hagiou pneumatos)? In the New Testament dorea is used to refer to spiritual gift (John 4:10); to supernatural gift (Acts 8:20); the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 11:17); the gift of grace (Romans 5:15; Eph. 3:7); the gift of liberality (2 Cor. 9:15); the heavenly gift (Heb. 6:4); the gift of Christ (Eph. 4:7); the gift of righteousness (Romans 5:17).

It is argued that Acts 2:38 contains an epexegetical clause. For example, in Romans 5:17, the “gift of righteousness” is not the gift coming or originating from righteousness, but righteousness itself, in which case, it is translated, the “gift, which is righteousness.” Acts 2:38 is also interpreted as epexegetical, “the gift, which is the Holy Spirit.” May we be forewarned however that this is just an interpretation, that we are arguing from implication, not from explication, and that the passage does not directly say the gift is the Holy Spirit Himself.

We have also have lined up above the different uses of the word dorea, the very word translated as “gift” in Acts 2:38. But other words than dorea have also been translated “gift.” Therefore when you see the word “gift” in your English Bible do not immediately conclude it is dorea, and when you see dorea, do not immediately say it means “Holy Spirit”!

Is the dorea salvation from sins? A minister of the gospel has this objection: “If the Holy Spirit is the ‘the gift,’ that is, the personal indwelling in each Christian, why did Peter use the word ‘gift’ at all? Why didn’t Peter simply say: ‘You shall receive the Holy Spirit,’ rather than ‘the gift of the Holy Spirit’? In John 20:22, Jesus said to His apostles, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit.’ Definitely the promise was that they were to receive the Holy Spirit Himself in some way and not some ‘gift’ that the Holy Spirit would give. On Pentecost, the obedient believers were promised a ‘gift’ that the Holy Spirit would give them as a result of their obedience to the gospel message. What was the gift they received? The forgiveness of their sins! Salvation! Redemption through the blood of Jesus Christ!” (Click here: The Examiner).

Now read Acts 2:38 (RSV) and try making some substitution: “And Peter said to them, ‘Repent and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins and you shall receive the FORGIVENESS OF SINS.” How does that sound?

There is no need to make war over Acts 2:38. Both interpretations are based on implications, and implications are just our conclusions. Are there wise men in both camps of this Holy Spirit indwelling controversy? I think there are. “Do any of you have wisdom and insight? Show this by living the right way with the humility that comes from wisdom” (James 3:13, God’s Word, courtesy of WordSearch).

Acts 2:38 is the only passage that speaks of the promised gift of the Holy Spirit AFTER baptism. By baptism here we mean baptism in water. Acts 11:17, paired with Acts 10:44, speaks of the Holy Spirit falling on the household of Cornelius BEFORE they were baptized in water (Acts 10:47). In short: the three thousand got it AFTER baptism; the household of Cornelius BEFORE baptism.

We have just shown that Acts 2:38 does not explicitly say that the “gift of the Holy Spirit” is the Holy Spirit itself. Neither does it mean “salvation” or “forgiveness from sins.” What is it? I don’t know. I don’t like to venture an opinion that would later on be proven to be wrong.

Acts 5:32. This passage, together with Acts 2:38, is used to buttress our contention that “every disciple who submits himself to the Lord’s command to be baptized not only receives the forgiveness of sins but also the gift of the Spirit, which is the Holy Spirit.” Acts 5:32 says, “And we are his witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God hath given to them that obey him” (KJV).

Here we find the irate high priest and the equally irate group of people, majority of whom probably belonged to the Sadducean sect, ganging up on the apostles (Acts 5:17-18). Prior to this, the apostles had been strictly commanded not to teach in the name of Christ Jesus, but instead they filled Jerusalem with their teaching (Acts 5:28)! Not only were the apostles accused of teaching a doctrine that runs counter to Sadduceeism–the teaching about the resurrected Jesus! — but they also were trying to hold these religious authorities accountable for the death of Jesus (”you intend to bring this man’s blood upon us!”). In the face of this unbelievably strong pressure, Peter said, “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29)!

Peter irritated them the more by preaching a mini-sermon covering the key points of Christ’s death, His resurrection and His glorification. Peter blamed them for crucifying Jesus. But God (who was also the God of the Sadducees and of their counterparts the Pharisees) subverted their plan by raising up Jesus from the grave, and by exalting Him to His right hand as Prince and Savior, to grant repentance to the nation of Israel and forgiveness of sins (Acts 5:31). If I were a Jew living in strict conformity to the law, the doctrine about a crucified God is too much for me to swallow. And if I were a Sadducean high priest confronting a rebellious Jewish preacher just fresh from prison, a rebel Jew who was imprisoned for performing a miracle, a miracle done in the name of the Man whom we had just crucified as a common criminal, how would I react? I would be enraged!

Then Peter said, “And we are the witnesses of these things [or, these words]” (literal translation of Acts 5:32a). What did Peter mean? (1) That they were witnesses of Christ’s death, his resurrection and his ascension into glory; (2) That they were witnesses of the words they were preaching. They were witnesses of what they had seen and heard.

And he added that the Holy Spirit also was an additional witness. “And so is also the Holy Ghost.” God the Father resurrected Jesus by the power of the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit had equipped them to preach with boldness. The religious establishment opposed Peter and the apostles because they were small, insignificant personalities. But oppose the Spirit they could not. They probably remembered what Jesus had said about this Spirit (Matthew 12:32).

The rest of the passage reads, “And so is also the Holy Ghost whom God GAVE to the ones obeying Him” (Acts 5:32b).

The verb “gave” is Alfred Marshall’s translation of the Greek verb edoken, which is aorist indicative active. It is indicative because it is a simple statement of facts. Active because the subject of the verb, “God,” is the one doing the action. It is aorist in its tense, and is referring to the past action of giving. It is a done thing, finished, fulfilled.

Concerning the aorist, J. Gresham Machen says, “The aorist is like the imperfect in that it refers to past time. But the imperfect refers to continuous action in past time, while the aorist is the simple past tense…The Greek language shows no tendency whatever to confuse the aorist with the imperfect” (New Testament Greek for Beginners, pp. 81-85).

If you use Acts 5:32 to apply to every case of Christians baptized today for the remission of their sins, saying he receives the Holy Spirit after he has obeyed the command of baptism, you will surely encounter some problems with one who knows Greek grammar.

I have not made up my mind on what conclusions to make of this discovery. But if you have a better explanation (not one you just copied from Leo Boles, B. W. Johnson, David Lipscomb, or other “restorers”), I am willing to listen to it.

Boles, Johnson and Lipscomb were good scholars, and I learned so much from reading them, but…

I stand here, holding a glass, and I want to drink from that faucet. Some of us may be contented with drinking from that jug which they have passed on to us. If this is the kind of scholar that you are, then let’s be at peace. I am not going to convince you to change. But I want to go ahead and drink from that faucet myself. To be an independent thinker is my choice.

%d bloggers like this: